Ken, you insult me by calling me a "right-winger". You do not know me. I have fought for progressive causes since I was a teenager. I have put in countless hours campaigning for left-wing causes and candidates, and more dollars than I care to count. My professional life is in support of civil liberties and I have fought more hard battles in this field than you can imagine.

You're correct in saying that Ken doesn't know you. The truth is, for the most part, we don't really know other from these forums. The only thing we can judge each other by is our comments on specific topics and the person's overall posting history. When you continually insult people who disagree with you and have refused to address the specific questions people have asked, their assessments of you are not going to be favourable.

And you haven't presented any alternative Labour leader who would both be acceptable to the PLP and actually stand for anything. You don't seriously expect us to believe that the party would do better if only it went back to cynical militaristic centrism.

​You seem to think everyone else in this discussion should simply take your word for it that you and you alone know what Labour needs. Why SHOULD we do that?

Labour lost badly in 2010 a 2015 with "moderates" in the leadership. If they couldn't win, what would you call for? Moving the party to their RIGHT(when there is nothing to the right of Ed Miliband other than simply joining the Tories and being done with it)? Putting in Dan Jarvis, a man whose ONLY selling point is once having been a paratrooper?
​Who is your magical centrist saviour-figure?

And if, as you sometimes argued, the issue simply with Corbyn as an individual, why didn't you agree that the PLP should have committed to putting someone with or near Corbyn's views on the leadership ballot to choose his successor? If the PLP had done that, Corbyn would probably have stood down, if for no other reason than to spare himself the abuse.

You need to realize that the arrogance and dismissiveness you show to Corbyn's supporters(almost all of whom are nothing more than good, decent left-wing democratic socialists in the Tony Benn mold), as displayed also by the PLP, represents a significant part of the reason for the tensions within Labour. The PLP has never, at any point, listened to or made any effort to understand why Corbyn's supporters support him-it's not about worship of the man, it's about the fact that they believe he stands for what they want, in an era in which the MPs of the party they support have no respect for the values of social democracy, human solidarity, defense of the working and kept-from-working poor, and opposition to bigotry and xenophobia. The PLP could have chosen dialog, openness, and basic human respect. Instead, they defended Blairism-Brownism with Stalinist inflexibility.

Why could they, and you, not simply listen? Would that really have been asking so much?

And your last quote was particularly despicable. Yes, Corbyn is to the left of your comfort zone, but he has never expressed any views that you'd have to be a Trotskyist to support, and he has never been sectarian in the least.

i keep reading bleats here that no other potential Labour leader could do better than Corbyn. I am unaware of polling that asks "how wd you vote if Labour were led by x instead of Corbyn."

i am quite confident that almost no other potential leader - Starmer, Cooper, Lewis, Khan, Bennn or anyone else could possibly do worse than drag Labour down to its lowest vote in a century as Corbyn is doing.

if the views expressed by voters in this article are remotely true then hoards of people will gladly embrace Labour once it rids itself of its albatross current leader.

Yes I know. 99% of Labour's current problems are because of the evil Blairites. ( remind me , how long has Blair been out of power)

​Remember Joseph Stalin? How long has he been out of power? Do people still remember him?

​The amount of time 'out of power' is not as important as people's memories of the 'time in power'.

Blair lost in 2007 so a decade ago. The BC NDP lost in 2001 and they have been trying to rebuild every since Glen Clark's rein ended in 1999. The machinations by the internal NDP machine at the time to get a liberal named Dosanjh elected leader is our equivalent to the Labour party insiders who want to control the party as a fiefdom.

i keep reading bleats here that no other potential Labour leader could do better than Corbyn. I am unaware of polling that asks "how wd you vote if Labour were led by x instead of Corbyn."

i am quite confident that almost no other potential leader - Starmer, Cooper, Lewis, Khan, Bennn or anyone else could possibly do worse than drag Labour down to its lowest vote in a century as Corbyn is doing.

if the views expressed by voters in this article are remotely true then hoards of people will gladly embrace Labour once it rids itself of its albatross current leader.

I didn't say ALL the problems were personally due to Blair. But can you seriously deny that his insistence on keeping the grassroots of the party totally out in the cold on any significant decisions in the party has had a significant effect?

​Can you also dismiss the fact that Labour did badly in the last two elections with two leaders who ran the party exactly like he did and on policy ideas almost identical to his?

Other than possibly Trident(which Corbyn actually COULDN'T get rid of if elected, given that keeping Trident is stated party policy)what other things does he support that you find loathesome as policy?

​Do you think it does harm that Corbyn wants the grassroots activists of the party, on whom ANY chance for victory depends, to have at least SOME say in the policies and governance of the party they support?

​I've asked why you defend the unwillingness of the MPs(the only remaining antisocialists in the entire party at this point) to try and engage with what the grassroots are saying, and you've never offered any real response to that. It matters, because the arrogance of the PLP played a major role in Corbyn winning the leadership.

​A party in which not only Corbyn but the ideas his supporters stand for were erased is a party that would go on standing for nothing, as it has since 1997. That might have been a pragmatic, short-term approach for the Nineties(never mind that there's strong evidence Labour would have retured to power without becoming viciously anti-Left), are you really saying that Blairism-Brownism should never ever have ended?

​No party in UK history ever changed leaders during a general election. There's no way to do so this time and unite the party behind whoever an interim leader would be, because the PLP(and let's face it, an interim leader could only be chosen using a PLP-only ballot) wouldn't allow any interim leader who supported any views anywhere close to those of Corbyn or his supporters. A centrist leader would simply lead the party to obliteration now, since everyone who cared about the workers and the poor would find the election officially meaningless if fought on centrist policies.

i keep reading bleats here that no other potential Labour leader could do better than Corbyn. I am unaware of polling that asks "how wd you vote if Labour were led by x instead of Corbyn."

i am quite confident that almost no other potential leader - Starmer, Cooper, Lewis, Khan, Bennn or anyone else could possibly do worse than drag Labour down to its lowest vote in a century as Corbyn is doing.

if the views expressed by voters in this article are remotely true then hoards of people will gladly embrace Labour once it rids itself of its albatross current leader.

I didn't say ALL the problems were personally due to Blair. But can you seriously deny that his insistence on keeping the grassroots of the party totally out in the cold on any significant decisions in the party has had a significant effect?

​Can you also dismiss the fact that Labour did badly in the last two elections with two leaders who ran the party exactly like he did and on policy ideas almost identical to his?

Other than possibly Trident(which Corbyn actually COULDN'T get rid of if elected, given that keeping Trident is stated party policy)what other things does he support that you find loathesome as policy?

​Do you think it does harm that Corbyn wants the grassroots activists of the party, on whom ANY chance for victory depends, to have at least SOME say in the policies and governance of the party they support?

​I've asked why you defend the unwillingness of the MPs(the only remaining antisocialists in the entire party at this point) to try and engage with what the grassroots are saying, and you've never offered any real response to that. It matters, because the arrogance of the PLP played a major role in Corbyn winning the leadership.

​A party in which not only Corbyn but the ideas his supporters stand for were erased is a party that would go on standing for nothing, as it has since 1997. That might have been a pragmatic, short-term approach for the Nineties(never mind that there's strong evidence Labour would have retured to power without becoming viciously anti-Left), are you really saying that Blairism-Brownism should never ever have ended?

​No party in UK history ever changed leaders during a general election. There's no way to do so this time and unite the party behind whoever an interim leader would be, because the PLP(and let's face it, an interim leader could only be chosen using a PLP-only ballot) wouldn't allow any interim leader who supported any views anywhere close to those of Corbyn or his supporters. A centrist leader would simply lead the party to obliteration now, since everyone who cared about the workers and the poor would find the election officially meaningless if fought on centrist policies.

I read Freedland's piece. Assuming it actually happened, it's nothing new from Freedland, and the Guardian(a paper everyone would pretty much now have to concede is conservative)has been rabidly anti-Corbyn the whole time. Guardian still thinks there's a difference between Theresa May and Liz Kendall.

If Labour one of the people you wanted as leader, it wouldn't disagree with the Tories on anything.
Labour "moderates" don't have any views on the issues that diverge from the Tories, and nothing left-of-center can possibly happen under a Labour governmet that supports austerity(fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets)and continued benefit cuts. Without nationalization or even guarantees that the tiny, remnants of the currently nationalized industries remain in public hands, benefits are the only remaining tools for helping the non-wealthy. There isn't anything else.

The PLP should just have admitted it wasn't Corbyn's fault that Leave won and they should have changed the requirements for the leadership ballot so it wouldn't be just small-c conservatives like Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umunna. If the issue was just Corbyn as an individual(you've admitted the policies he supports have never been the problem)what did they have to lose from doing that? Why could they not, ever, even in the slightest, bend a little?

Do you not see the PLP's inflexibility as any part of the problem?

​If nothing else, at least tell me this...on what issues, as you see it, does Labour HAVE to be to the left of the Tories on in order to justify the party's continued existence? What is the minimum required, in your view, for Labour to still BE Labour? And, as you see it, who in the party should have the say in deciding what that is?

The only possible acceptable replacement for Corbyn I can think of would be John McDonnell. He comes of as a much stronger personality type and is more forceful and effective in debate and on television. Since he isn't weak and is of a much more working-class background, could you live with him?

Perhaps you must define "conservative" as "anyone sensible enough to see that Corbyn is a disaster for the Labour Party and the best friend the "Conservative Party ever had."

It can't be anything but Conservative to devote most of your paper's space to attacking the twice-elected leader of the Labour Party. It certainly can't ever serve any reconizably left purpose to keep doing that once a general election campaign is underway and it's too late for a leadership change to make any difference.

​And it can't be anything but Conservative to keep arguing that Labour's policies must be as right-wing as possible, whoever leads it. You'd have to concede the point on that one, I think.

McDonnell would be just as much a disaster as Corbyn, perhpas even more so be cause he comes accross as an especially humourless and inflexible ideologue. Corbyn at least as a sort of shambling incoherence about him without having McDonnell's arrogance. A bit like the difference between Rob Ford and Doug Ford.

Besides anyone with the appalling political instincts to back Corbyn for the leadership in the first place has a serious strike against him.

Now that I'veanswered your question, Ken, (I trust to your complete satisfaction) perhaps you can answer one for me.

What result on June 9 would justify Coryn staying on as leader? Getting 25% of the popular vote? Losing only 100 MPs? Is there any limit to the electoral catastrophe that would require him to resign in your considered view?

Holding Labour's ground in seats, especially given the fact that, with no justification, his party's MPs treat him with complete disrespect, in a way no previous party leader in British history has ever been treated.

He'd have resigned before the election if the PLP had abandoned the 15% rule for the leadership ballot and agreed to restoring internal democracy. Can you at least admit they should have met him halfway like that? That it was never legitimate for them to expect him to just leave with NO guarantees that his supporters and their ideas(almost all of which are popular)would not be erased?

​Labour members voted for him twice. If there had been 'buyers remorse', I doubt he would have won twice in a row. What is more likely is the PLP is completely out of touch with the membership.

Now the PLP is trying to force Corbyn out, and restricting who the members may choose after he leaves. Whatever the short term prospects for Labour, the long-term prospects, given a victory by the PLP over the membership, are even worse.

The PLP is going to have to decide whether they stand with the membership, or against it. So far they've been against it, but that situation cannot continue forever.

McDonnell would be just as much a disaster as Corbyn, perhpas even more so be cause he comes accross as an especially humourless and inflexible ideologue. Corbyn at least as a sort of shambling incoherence about him without having McDonnell's arrogance. A bit like the difference between Rob Ford and Doug Ford.

Besides anyone with the appalling political instincts to back Corbyn for the leadership in the first place has a serious strike against him.

Now that I'veanswered your question, Ken, (I trust to your complete satisfaction) perhaps you can answer one for me.

What result on June 9 would justify Coryn staying on as leader? Getting 25% of the popular vote? Losing only 100 MPs? Is there any limit to the electoral catastrophe that would require him to resign in your considered view?

I'd love to seem him get more than 30% and at least 225 seats and stay on just to drive you, and those of your ilk who have done nothing but seek to undermine him from day one, up a wall. And, if not, remember, paybacks are a bitch.

But I do not agree that they should have compromised on that. Corbyn's disasterous leadership more than justifies the PLP standing firm to prevent a similar nightmare in the future.

At least you agree that If Corbyn loses seats he should resign forthwith. I have that right don't I?

If they didn't compromise on that, even slightly, they had no right to expect him to go, given that that means they wouldn't have let anyone who was anti-austerity or anti-cuts on the next ballot-i.e., that since the PLP doesn't care about the workers or the poor any longer(as you can't care if support mandatory balanced budgets)all that could possible have happened under a post-Corbyn leader from the hard right of the party would be Labour simply adopting the Tory platform(that's what Labour "moderates want"-to end all debate in British politics forever, to make all elections from here on nothing more than contests as to which group of right-wing elitists hold power).

If the anti-Corbynites just wanted a different leader, they should have made it clear that what the Left wants was not totally abandoned. They should have accepted that Labour must be a social movement as much as a party seeking electoral victory, and they should have acceopted that Labour has an obligation to listen to the voices from below at least as much as it listens to the billionaires.

None of that was too much to ask.

It's not evil just to BE a Blairite...it is pointless rigidity to insist that what Blair did two decades ago, in a political situation totally different from today, is not the only way for Labour ever to win another election. It's not a choice of left-bashing and perpetual militarism or the abyss.

Does it amount to asking for a special exception? If so, maybe it is too much, by the rules of the game.

If Labour were led by some right-wingy Neanderthal, who would be saying that as a condition of him stepping aside, the Party should reassure him that some other right-wingy fellow would necessarily be on the ballot? What if the only people on the ballot were those who satisfied Labour's own chosen rules for who gets to be on the ballot?

Most of the people who will vote to choose Labour's next leader, whenever that next leader is chosen are left-wing in their views. This isn't likely to change. So it would not be a legitimate contest if only people acceptable to the MPs(the MPs being essentially the only non left-wing sector of the entire party) were put on the leadership ballot. Obviously no non left-wing leadership candidate could ever be capable of doing anything distiguishable from Toryism, anything benefiting the poor, anything recogizably Labour at all, if that person ever became prime minister. Goes without saying.

Ken B predictably repeats:"since the PLP doesn't care about the workers or the poor any longer."

Despite failing woefully in foreign policy and civil liberties, the Blair government was responsible for many many social welfare improvements that helped the working class.

If Ken is right and Labour under Corbyn has newly rediscovered working class issues why do the polls ( and the recent election results) show conclusively that Labour is losing its work- class base? Its losses in that demographic are significantly greater than in the middle class (where Corbyn is scarcely worshipped either)

Does this decline have anything at all to do with Corbyn being a ridiculous leader? Or is it all the fault of the evil Blairites?

I haven't said every Blair-associated Labourite is personally evil or wicked(only the ones who STILL defend the Iraq War and who want to bomb Syria). Some were very good, such as the late Mo Mowlam, who built on the work started by Jeremy and others in creating dialog, power-sharing and peace in Northern Ireland, or Robin Cook, who resigned from the cabinet over the futility of Blair's wars.

The undeniable truth, though, is that Blairism will never be popular again.

Labour ran on Blairite platforms in 2010 and 2015. Each time, it took 30%. Given that that proves Blair's policies can never get Labour government elected again, why even pretend that those policies could possibly be worth going back to?

Or that Labour should have done what the PLP wanted to do after 2015 and started voting for ALL Tory benefit cuts?

Do you have any idea how much lower Labour's poll ratings would be if the party had actually DONE that?

They'd probably be in fourth-place, behind the LibDems AND the Greens(who themselves would be in second).

It's too late to change leaders and there's no possible replacement for Corbyn who could possibly win the unified support of both the PLP AND the huge grassroots base of the party. If there was a person who could have done that, that person would have won the leadership in 2015 OR 2016.

Just admit that its time to unify behind the leader Labour has now. There is no alternative. The PLP won't allow anyone good like Clive Lewis to get the job.

Ken B predictably repeats:"since the PLP doesn't care about the workers or the poor any longer."

Despite failing woefully in foreign policy and civil liberties, the Blair government was responsible for many many social welfare improvements that helped the working class.

If Ken is right and Labour under Corbyn has newly rediscovered working class issues why do the polls ( and the recent election results) show conclusively that Labour is losing its work- class base? Its losses in that demographic are significantly greater than in the middle class (where Corbyn is scarcely worshipped either)

Does this decline have anything at all to do with Corbyn being a ridiculous leader? Or is it all the fault of the evil Blairites?

I don't understand why you just don't sign up with the Liberal Democrats. They seem to be more to your taste. They are unabashedly pro-EU and solidly Blairite.

Josh, the only hope many Labour MPs have is distancing themselves as far as possible from Corbyn who is an anvil around their electoral necks. He is monumentally unpopular, even reviled. Donald Trump is more poular in Britain than Corbyn.

So, no, Idon't think that the party should rally around Corbyn. If it does so even more of its MPs will lose.

The best chance Labour has is to maximize its number of MPs by reassuring voters : we do not support this clown, he is not going to bee PM, send us back to parliament so we can bring Labour back to sanity and become competitors for power again under a new leader.

27. Over 36,000 more teachers in England and 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.

28. All full time workers now have a right to 24 days paid holiday.

29. A million pensioners lifted out of poverty.

30. 600,000 children lifted out of relative poverty.

31. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents.

32. Scrapped Section 28 and introduced Civil Partnerships.

33. Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard.

34. Inpatient waiting lists down by over half a million since 1997.

35. Banned fox hunting.

36. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution.

37. Free TV licences for over-75s.

38. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals.

39. Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70.

40. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s.

41. New Deal – helped over 1.8 million people into work.

42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started.

43. Free eye test for over 60s.

44. More than doubled the number of apprenticeships.

45. Free entry to national museums and galleries.

46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled.

47. Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 and cancer deaths down by 50,000.

48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent.

49. Free nursery places for every three and four-year-olds.

50. Free fruit for most four to six-year-olds at school.

Blair had some achievements. The main points of disagreement you and I would have on those acheivements are whether the ONLY possible way Blair could have had the chance to make them was to use the tactics he used within his own party and to commit the party to the bad policies he committed it to(specifically, moving to the RIGHT of the Tories on crime, foreign policy, and the use of force, declaring war against almost all remaining socialists within the party, abolishing internal party democracy, sucking up to Murdoch and the billionaires)in order to have the chance to achieve them. Was it really necessary for Labour to have a leader who seemed to despise most of the people in his own party?

Was it really necessary, once elected, for Blair to keep going scorched-earth against the Labour Left?

And is the only possible way for Labour to return to power to revert to the worst of Blair's leadership approach and never deviate from it again for the rest of eternity?

​Should we assume that Labour only won in 1997 because of what Blair did to the party?
​And should we assume today that a leader in the Blair mold would have any further achievements in power, given that virtually ALL such figures within the PLP today are sharply to the right on budget policy and in their views on the welfare state?

​Finally, how do you explain that Labour lost badly in the last two elections with nearly the most Blairite leaders possible? The views of Ed Miliband are almost identical to the views of his brother David, who narrowly lost to Ed in the 2011 leadership race, and whose supporters then spent the next four years slandering Ed with the claim that he had "stabbed his brother in the back" by even running.

Have no idea when that list is from since the link won't come up for me. But one of the first thing Blair did was place control of monetary policy in the Bank of England. Thereby eliminating democratic control over monetary policy. Something not even Thatcher thought of doing.

Have no idea when that list is from since the link won't come up for me. But one of the first thing Blair did was place control of monetary policy in the Bank of England. Thereby eliminating democratic control over monetary policy. Something not even Thatcher thought of doing.

The first phase of Labour’s 2017 leadership contest ended on Thursday afternoon when nominations closed for the June 9th General Election. Those like John Rentoul who have analysed the list of candidates for seats that LAB could possibly hold onto say that there will not be enough Corbyn supporting MPs elected in the general election for them to make a nomination according to Labour’s rules.

The hard left’s plan to change the rules to reduce the threshold at the September conference in order to make it easier for them to get somebody on the ballot have been thwarted by Mrs May’s calling a general election in June.

If Corbyn on June 9th decides not to quit after his likely massive general election defeat then he is not going to be able to hang on until the Party Conference for the rule change. It is hard to see in these circumstances him not facing an immediate challenge and the chances are that this time, in the aftermath of an appalling defeat, he’d lose.

It's not "hard left" just to believe that Labour's policy should be to guarantee no further benefit cuts, want a pro-peace foreign policy and want the unions to be powerful enough to defend working people again(they've all been powerless since Thatcher's anti-worker laws were passed and then kept in place by New Labour).

I just watched Corbyn's speech to open the campaign, and I think it was pretty good. In particular, it was all about values and policy, and not about Corbyn at all. I suspect more than a few voters will buy into this approach, given that the main points of the leaked manifesto all poll as very popular. nicky may be in for a big disappointment on June 8.

If Labour loses on June 8th, there's good reason to think the results of all further UK elections won't ever mean much of anything again. It will simply be a competition over which group of right-wing elitists get to administer perpetual austerity and perpetual war.

No Michael, I do hope that Labour gets as many MPs as possible so as to manintain the Corbynites at a level below 15% of the caucus. I have posted before on this topic and provided several links as to how important this is for the future leadership contest.

The Conservatives have been disasterous for Britain. You need only consider the fallouts from Brexit and the Scottish referendum

Any broadly acceptable Labour leader could beat May. The great tragedy of this election is that Corbyn is ruining Labour's chances.

If he were less egotistical and ideologically myopic he woyuld realize this and step aside for the good of his party.